The "science" on the issue of wireless radiation can often feel like an overwhelming (and internally contradictory) sea of jargon.
These days, it often feels like we have two equally unsatisfying options:
We don't support either of those options.
We think you should look over the literature yourself. BUT it takes a LOT of time to learn the lingo, figure out who to trust (and why--particularly given the influence of funding), and put everything together. We've tried to save you some of the legwork.
In this section, you'll find the following:
With the exception of the section marked "scientific reviews," each of the studies referenced below has been pre-screened to make sure it is:
Simply click on the file to download it. A general list of citational information is also available at the bottom of this page.
Each of these studies has been pre-screened to make sure it is:
All of these studies are summarized, screened, and linked /available for download below.
This handout is available for download on our 'educational resources" page.
This handout is available for download on our 'educational resources" page.
While the FCC focuses on thermal damage (how much radiation it takes to heat your body), these studies suggest that the health risks of today's typical exposures are non-thermal (Pakhomov et al 1997abc). It is also critical to note that many of the biological responses to RF are frequency dependent (Pakhomov et al 1997, Markovà et al 2005, Sarimov et al. 2004) and also “dependen[t] on several genetic, physiological, and physical variables” (Belyaev et al 2000). This variation in biological response likely helps explain why there are an undeniably significant number of well-designed studies that do not show health risks of RF (on a specific aspect of health and at a certain frequency/power density/modulation).
Each of the studies referenced below is:
In general, we’ve given preference to research teams with a diverse experience set (e.g., both biology/genetics/toxicology and physics/engineering). We’ve also highlighted studies that were given high quality ratings by overwhelmingly critical reviewers (e.g., Karipidis et al 2021), and/or studies that found evidence of health risks even though they were funded by institutions with histories of under-emphasizing the potential risks of RF (e.g., the NIH, CDC, FDA).
Each of the studies referenced below is:
The following are reviews of the scientific literature (and responses to those reviews). In order to counterbalance our clear bias towards studies that show the risks of RF radiation, we have included largely **critical** reviews (particularly by scientists with ties to telecom industries or to the FCC or the ICNIRP . WHile these reviews largely note the poor quality of many RF studies (and thus, conclude that "more research is needed"), telecoms industry reps are using these studies to suggest that there is "no evidence of harm."
Before reading these reviews, it is helpful to recognize the following factors that explain why there are so many studies that do not show a risk of harm (for whatever parameter being tested):
GHC4ST Works Referenced (pdf)
DownloadCopyright © 2024 Greater Hartford Coalition for Safe Technology - All Rights Reserved.
Website, educational materials, infographics, and reports written and designed by R. Stephens and edited by members of GHC4ST.
Powered by GoDaddy
Please consider signing our petition. We're calling on public officials to establish setback restrictions that keep cell towers and antennas away from schools, senior centers, and residences.
It only takes 30 seconds to sign but is a BIG help!
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.